Skip to main content

Kick-starting the virtuous cycle of high-quality centralised resources

The day of my university graduation was also the day I learned that I had a place on a PGCE course. My other half, who did not know my parents very well, sat down with them for a coffee while I got my robes fitted.

“Are you ready?” – My mother, a teacher who at that point had around 35 years of teaching under her belt.

“…For what?” – My other half

“This is going to be the hardest two years of Becky’s life. You’re going to need to support her and you’re not going to see much of her until she’s at least out of her NQT.”

When I met up with my cheering session after the ceremony, he looked paler than I did.

It’s now been eight years since that fateful conversation and my other half has more than stepped up to the challenge; he’s cooked dinners, ironed shirts, cut out lettering, dropped off forgotten books, made banana bread for the team, prepared an ungodly amount of chicken for ‘Humanities Fajitas’, and he can even tell you what TLAC stands for. Most importantly, he has always graciously accepted that I’m unavailable on weekday evenings and that Sundays are my ‘work day’. However, over the last two years, I’ve begun to claw some time back for myself, for him, and for my team without sacrificing on quality. I’ll admit, the Mr. signed up for two years of intense support, rather than eight. However, I feel that the changes we have made within our team mean that this time is here to stay, rather than just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The main change we introduced was centralised resources.

What do I mean by centralised resources?

To me, centralised resources do not mean one-size-fits-all, off the peg, could just buy it off the TES generic Powerpoint presentations. They mean fully resourced ‘base lessons’ (usually with reading texts) in which the threshold concepts have been clearly signposted. Staff are responsible for individual units which they plan well in advance and into which they can sink significant amounts of time and love. The staff which then use these lessons know exactly what they need to focus on, but they also have the flexibility to adjust for their individual groups.


Why do I believe in centralised resources?

I believe that 99.9999% of teachers want the very best for their pupils and are willing to commit significant time to ensuring their pupils succeed. I’m also willing to bet that the same percentage of teachers do not want to spend every second of their waking lives outside school planning and marking. The problem is time. When teachers don’t have enough time and don’t have a strong system of centralised resources, they end up in a vicious cycle of ‘survival planning’ which bleeds them dry of any time or will for development:



The reason why this cycle is so harmful is because it is so difficult to break. Without significant intervention, it can slowly wear teachers down year after year, making them feel that every September they are starting from scratch or causing them to reuse resources which they know are not fit for purpose as they do no feel that improvement is possible or feasible.

However, when this cycle is broken and high-quality centralised resources become the norm, a virtuous cycle can be created in which staff have the time and the desire to continually improve their resources and teaching without feeling overwhelmed.



Why did we resist centralised resources?

I think there are a multitude or resources why teachers can resist centralised resources:

1.       Time: although centralised resources aim to reduce the amount of time spent planning or creating resources, starting the virtuous cycle above requires a significant input of time from one person or every member of the team. This initial push can seem impossible to start.

2.       Working = making: certainly when I started teaching, I felt as though work needed to be physically productive; if I was working, there had to be something to show for it. I usually felt that that ‘something’ had to be a resource. Therefore, to use someone else’s resources was somehow cheating or stealing.

3.       Personalisation: once again, at the beginning of my career, the educational zeitgeist seemed to heavily push the idea that every pupil was entirely different and therefore every lesson had to be entirely different. Resources could not be reused between classes or cohorts as they simply would not work.

4.       Ego: linked to the idea of ‘cheating’, part of me initially felt that centralised resources were somehow a comment about the quality of my planning; needing to use these resources apparently clearly demonstrated that my planning wasn’t good enough.

Many of these reasons focus on self-perception, potentially turning the introduction of centralised resources into a minefield. As a result, I believe they need to be implemented gradually and carefully.

How did we introduce centralised resources?

When introducing centralised resources to a team, I believe it should be done in a phased approach in order kickstart the virtuous cycle without making staff feel overwhelmed and to ensure that staff are bought-in to the process in the long term.

Stage 1: ‘The One Man Model’

The concept of centralised resources is sold to the team in person. Emphasis is placed on the virtuous cycle (as the long-term goal) and the short-term gains of reduced workload. One or two members of staff (probably department leadership) lead on producing resources, possibly only focusing on one or two units. The staff producing resources clearly signpost threshold concepts. At this point, emphasis should be placed on staff simply using the resources, rather than adapting them.

Ideally, a faculty/department meeting should be spent evaluating the centralised resources which have been used. This is a good opportunity to kick start a collaborative approach and a to dispel any myths that centralised resources are a critique of other teachers’ resources.

Stage 2: Adapting individual lessons

Once staff are in the habit of using centralised resources and can see their benefit in terms of workload, leadership should lead training on how to adapt resources for individual classes. Adaptation should have a ‘tight but loose’ approach which encourages staff to be responsive while also focusing on threshold concepts. Members of the team could share and discuss their practice in line management meetings and faculty meetings.

Stage 3: Delegating units

Planning starts to be shared out beyond leadership, well before they need to be taught. Line management meetings should include discussions about progress with planning and should serve as an opportunity to check through and discuss resources.

Stage 4: Collaborative evaluation and planning

Checking, evaluating, and planning become a process in which the entire team is involved. All members of the team have planning responsibility and units are reviewed, evaluated, and tweaked as soon as they have been taught. Teachers of different units regularly discuss with each other in order to gain feedback and to see where they can build on previous units. The team develop threads of schema and second order concepts which allow for effective interleaving, interweaving, and mastery.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Knowledge Organisers: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

The term "knowledge organiser" has been used a lot over the last few years. They are a tool of which I am a passionate advocate. However, opinions of them appear to be divided; While I have met many teachers who share my passion, others have been nonplussed or told me to 'just use a revision guide'. To me, knowledge organisers are the ultimate tool of inclusion. They will never replace the benefit of being taught by an expert. However, they create a situation in which every child, regardless of special need, attendance or socio-economic status, can have access to the core knowledge they need to succeed. However, this only happens if knowledge organisers are written well; I believe, in order to realise their benefits, knowledge organisers must be focused, sequential and accessible . Accessible: Many pupils will arrive at secondary school lacking in cultural capital, with a limited vocabulary or with little experience of subjects such as history or geog...

The Battle of the Knowledge Organisers with metacognition.org.uk

The world of Knowledge Organisers is often a dichotomous one. Are you team ‘narrative’, or team ‘grid’? In this blog, Becky Sayers and Nathan Burns explore the purpose of both types, as well as their respective advantages, disadvantages and applicability across subjects. So place your bets, as the fight is about to start…!   Becky Sayers writes about the definition, purpose, advantages and disadvantages of the ‘narrative’   Knowledge Organiser. The ‘Narrative’ Knowledge Organiser Why do we use Knowledge Organisers? As a faculty, we have been using Knowledge Organisers for around seven or eight years. If I’m honest, the original reason I used them is because I was told to do so by a faculty leader in whom I had immense trust. I did not understand their overall purpose and, as a result, the pages I produced were fairly poor quality. However, over the years we have thought carefully as a team about their purpose and, as a result, the Knowledge Organisers we have produce...

Building the foundation: How I write knowledge organisers

In my last post, “Knowledge Organisers: the good, the bad and ugly”, I argued that while knowledge organisers can be a powerful tool of inclusion, they only work if they are focused, sequential and accessible . When I first started writing knowledge organisers two years ago, my attempts did not even come close to meeting these criteria. As a result, they were cluttered, unfocused and ultimately an exercise in fashion over function. Since then, I have devised a standard method to ensure that any knowledge organisers I make have an impact and can be used in the long term: Identify key knowledge. Group your facts into sections. Write your sections. Number or code your sections. Quality assure your sections. 1.        Identify key knowledge It’s easy to fall into the trap of including too much in a knowledge organiser, particularly when writing about topics we’re interested or about which we know a lot. We want to share our passion and subject...